In article <7vsig7$lit$1 at nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
"smarthu" <smarthu at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>truffler1635 at my-deja.com wrote in message <7vsacl$tob$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <s20lkrl124263 at corp.supernews.com>,
> > bob mcarthur <rgmcarthatviserdotnet> wrote:
> >> paul at banon.demon.co.uk writes: > Tom, that's not the point - the point is
> anyway that the forest can't be
> >> Just for laughs, let me ask.
> >I love a challenge.
> >> Define forestry.
> >Growing trees. But another definition in Webster's is "harvesting
> >trees." These seem non-identical to me. Should "harvesting trees" be
> >terms "logging?"
> >> Deifine sustainability.
> >Being able to grow trees over time. (Of course, in order to do that you
> >also need to be able to grow mycorrhizal fungi, especially
> >ectomycorrhizal fungi for most trees.
>> <snip>
>> Well, that's the point.
> Is forestry exploiting a forest or using a forest or managing a forest?
As currently practiced, forestry is mostly guesswork. The government
gave the Forest Service a mandate to manage forests for the common good.
At this time, it hasn't shown is can cultivate trees for over 80 years.
This is neither good forestry nor good management under any definition.
(Is
> farming exploiting plants and animals or raising plants and animals?)
There is some question whether farming takes place either. Most of the
crops we rely on for survival also require mycorrhizal fungi. If you
aren't growing these, are you really "growing" anything?
>> How long is "sustainable" supposed to last? ("sustainable forestry" is
> almost as vague as saying, "for the good of the children," or "relieve the
> burden of the poor.")
>At a bare minimum, sustainable should be for at least another rotation.
If old-growth 800-year trees are the goal of forestry (something no one
has stated) it behooves us to demonstrably grow such trees. To date that
has not happened. In fact, it has not taken place anywhere on earth.
Why? How many fungi do you know how to grow?
> Until we can really come to some sort of agreements of what our terms are
> and why we think they are important we might as well be arguing about how
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin or the true meaning of the Nicean
> creed. Entertaining, worth burtning heretics, and ultimately useless.
Exactly. The forest industry has yet to prove they can successfully
replant clearcuts. Thus, they admit to being ignorant of forestry.
>> Is sustainable forever, or for a shorter term?
Both.
> Is forestry growing trees, cutting down trees, managing trees, or writing
> reports about trees so as to keep managers off your butt?
It depends on whether your management plan is tied up with beaurocratic
red-tape. How many foresters are currently receiving tax credits for
providing slow-release of water downhill from their plantations? The
Audubon Society notes that every is downstream of forests. Shouldn't
these users also be picking up the tab for forest maintenance?
>> This is where the argument needs to start, not over what Gore thinks the
> true meaning of wilderness is.
>> (now I will go off into a corner and swear for a half hour, and hope the
> neighbors can't hear me through the wall)
>Swearing won't help. You can be more creative than that. Go out and
plant a tree instead. It'll make you feel _much_ better. Think of what
your kids, grandkids and great-grand-kids will think of you in the
future. Hell, they may even create your trees into a park to laste for
800 years into the future. Wouldn't that be nice?
Of course, there's still got to be income from the trees on a yearly
basis without depending on the fed to help in any manner...
May I suggest growing mushrooms? ;)
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.